|
|
On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much.
Most of the cities on that list are "legacy citys" who have been put into an impossible position by their manufacturing leaving and the more affluent (tax revenues) fleeing to suburbs. Has nothing to do with party affiliation of the local government. They are facing trends way larger than their abilitty to control things.
|
In a timely release, the CBO has given it's analysis of the effect of the fiscal cliff on growth and employment: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43694
The report notes that tax cuts have a much smaller effect on growth and employment relative to spending. In addition, the CBO says that tax cuts for the rich are mostly worthless because they're largely saved, instead of spent:
The estimated economic effect next year of those changes in spending is about half the estimated effect of extending the expiring tax provisions, even though the budgetary impact of the changes in spending is less than one-quarter of the impact of the changes in taxes. The larger “bang for the buck” next year of the spending policies under the alternative fiscal scenario occurs because, CBO expects, a significant part of the decrease in taxes (relative to those under current law) would be saved rather than spent.
Of course, this should have been obvious to anyone not stuck in the Republican bubble, where the facts don't get through, as evidence by their utter shock that Romney got trounced, despite the polling evidence.
Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for middle class families and to let them expire on the rich (above $250K income). Yet Republicans want to keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich despite this report claiming that tax cuts for the rich are not a cost effective way to generate growth.
In fact, from Figure 1 and Table 1:
<Policy:
Effect on GDP / Effect on Employment / Cost (see report for the units)>
Extend Most Expiring Tax Provisions and Index the AMT for Inflation:
1.4 / 1.8 / 330
Extend Most Expiring Tax Provisions—Except for the Lower Tax Rates on Income Above Certain Thresholds—and Index the AMT for Inflation:
1.3 / 1.6 / 288
This shows that extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone will add 1.4% to GDP, while letting it expire on rich people will add 1.3% to GDP, a very minor 0.1% difference. But letting the rich keep the Bush tax cuts will cost a lot.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v2MQe.png?1)
Now, let's look at the cost effectiveness of spending vs tax cuts, i.e. the amount of GDP or employment that we get for each dollar added to the deficit. Yes, according to the CBO, adding, instead of subtracting, to the deficit increases GDP and employment, which is again an argument for stimulus spending. Back on topic, the cost effectiveness is given in Figure 2, which I've copied above. What do we see? Here's the amount added to GDP for various spending and tax policies: spending: 1.2, 0.9, vs tax: 0.5, 0.6, 0.7. Spending gives almost twice the "bang for the buck" for growth than tax cuts.
And which tax cut is the most cost effective. That's the 0.7, which is an extension of the payroll tax cut. What's the least cost effective tax cut? That's the 0.5, which is extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.
Republicans are wrong again. Boehner's refusal to increase tax rates in a recent ABC interview makes him an ideological crank, ignoring the mandate that the American people have given Obama. Obama campaigned on taxing the rich, and he won the popular vote, achieved a landslide in the electoral college, beat Republicans in the House of Reps popular vote, and added to his majority in the senate. He has a mandate to raise taxes on the rich. Instead, Republicans would rather deny the will of the electorate and tank the economy to let millionaires keep a tax cut that adds 0.1% to GDP.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
policy evaluation by modeling the whole economy takes more brains to understand compared to the layman's view of economic policy. take tax cutting vs wise stimulus spending for example.
the layperson sees direct, tangible benefit to his bottom line on a tax cut. it is direct, familiar, and not "theory." even though it may not be the best use of resources. the effect of stimulus on the micro level is invisible to many, because it works indirectly. each dollar spent is more effective, but it works through positive feedback. it is also very very susceptible to cynical views like "funding welfare mothers" or "giving kickbacks to political backers." (i'll let you decide which one is true)
i have more comments on the proper theoretical and epistemic level at which to approach public policy (it's not classical theory for sure), but whatever.
some of the policy options on the table are just absurd. let's have rational policy making rather than blind (or bought and paid for) ideology.
|
To add to my above post about the fiscal cliff: Krugman's op-ed today advises Obama to go over the fiscal cliff if necessary. His argument is basically: "We do not negotiate with terrorists!" And there's some nice snark in this post about Erskine Bowles.
|
I'm Canadian and I can say 100% that this election scared the shit out of me. The U.S. is like a big brother to me here in Canada and had Romney been elected... it would've been like I just found out my older bro was hard into meth making the stupidest decisions he ever could. My family, friends... they'd eventually just disown him. He'd lose the few friends he had left and slowly die no doubt. It's still unsettling that this election was even close
|
|
|
On November 09 2012 19:03 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 09 2012 15:59 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. The Bush tax cuts were a work in progress well before war broke out. Its what the country voted for when they elected Bush... and they were pretty responsible at the time. You're wrong. Bush passed two bills that cut taxes. The first was in progress well before war broke out in Afghanistan. The second happen well after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003Anyway, the point here is that if you go to war, you need money to fund it, so you should raise taxes. Or at least not cut them. Depends on your priorities. If you want the budget balanced, then yes. There was a risk of another recession if you did that though. What, you're a Keynesian now?
Just pointing out the logic of the time.
|
On November 10 2012 01:55 paralleluniverse wrote:To add to my above post about the fiscal cliff: Krugman's op-ed today advises Obama to go over the fiscal cliff if necessary. His argument is basically: "We do not negotiate with terrorists!" And there's some nice snark in this post about Erskine Bowles.
Politics first, economics second. Typical Krugman...
|
I agree very much with Krugman on this; hold their feet to the fire until they realize that their current response and the mandate supported via election results are incompatible. I am so ashamed that Boehner is from Ohio, might as well get started on fighting his re-election 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this blogpost is a nice read on the upcoming negotiation, a bit snarky but that's nice
highlights:
* negotiators of public policy are also selling their positions to the public
* identifying the politically responsive issues and framing the issue is ultra important, but democrats enjoy the political patience edge. the cliff behind the moderate republicans especially is steeper.
* actual gains and losses can often be obscured by low calorie policy trades that are politically more visible.
http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/35297918758/negotiation-101-revisited-a-primer
|
On November 10 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:I agree very much with Krugman on this; hold their feet to the fire until they realize that their current response and the mandate supported via election results are incompatible. I am so ashamed that Boehner is from Ohio, might as well get started on fighting his re-election
House Reps retained their mandate to block new tax increases. Its high risk brinkmanship to assume that they'll risk political suicide without a compromise.
|
|
|
On November 10 2012 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:I agree very much with Krugman on this; hold their feet to the fire until they realize that their current response and the mandate supported via election results are incompatible. I am so ashamed that Boehner is from Ohio, might as well get started on fighting his re-election House Reps retained their mandate to block new tax increases. Its high risk brinkmanship to assume that they'll risk political suicide without a compromise.
With the redistricting that took place, I'm looking at the Democratic gain of 7 seats as a rejection of that mandate, especially when viewed in concert with Senate victories and the margins of the presidential election.
|
On November 10 2012 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
House Reps retained their mandate to block new tax increases. Its high risk brinkmanship to assume that they'll risk political suicide without a compromise.
Default law is that we go over the fiscal cliff and House Republicans get crucified by it. Republicans put themselves in this position in the debt ceiling fight last year. If House Republicans have a mandate to block new tax increases, they'd better be willing to accept the consequences.
That, or pray their voters accept that "no new tax increases" is an eminently bipartisan offer and tax increases+spending decreases is creeping socialism.
At this point, I'm pretty close to advocating for going over the cliff and ensuring a Democratic House in 2014. Permanently kills Republican obstructionism and guarantees two years of productivity.
|
On November 10 2012 03:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 10 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:I agree very much with Krugman on this; hold their feet to the fire until they realize that their current response and the mandate supported via election results are incompatible. I am so ashamed that Boehner is from Ohio, might as well get started on fighting his re-election House Reps retained their mandate to block new tax increases. Its high risk brinkmanship to assume that they'll risk political suicide without a compromise. With the redistricting that took place, I'm looking at the Democratic gain of 7 seats as a rejection of that mandate, especially when viewed in concert with Senate victories and the margins of the presidential election.
You're correct, but House Reps won't see it that way. And even if they did, they also know that there won't be new districts until the 2022 elections. That's long after Obama is gone and enough time for the Senate to look completely different.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this mandate stuff is so detached from reality. seriously, these voters voted because of specific campaign image/incidents/promises. either base voting on national political representation is not enough to carry the vote.
mandate is what you have to use to craft a narrative when the issues are not clearly being voted upon by the populace. let the network news talk about it, but as a poster you shouldn't use it as a serious argument. instead, say whether it is good for the country to do this and this and we can deal with the disagreements rising from actual policy.
|
On November 10 2012 03:08 oneofthem wrote:
this mandate stuff is so detached from reality. seriously, these voters voted because of specific campaign image/incidents/promises. either base voting on national political representation is not enough to carry the vote.
mandate is what you have to use to craft a narrative when the issues are not clearly being voted upon by the populace. let the network news talk about it, but as a poster you shouldn't use it as a serious argument. instead, say whether it is good for the country to do this and this and we can deal with the disagreements rising from actual policy.
"Mandate" language is an unfortunate consequence of two party electoral politics, especially in the wake of a major election, and it gets just as much lip service within Congress as it does amongst media figures. You'll also have to do a bit more footwork if you're going to stand by declarations that this election allowed for "clear" voting on issues and that voting with "specific campaign image/incidents/promises" does not equal a support of a particular mandate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the specific campaign stuff means that the candidates' individual appeal and standing in the local community is important. "Congress" as an entity is detached from each congressperson, as far as evaluative process is concerned(sorites situation). congress itself has done a catastrophic job, congresspeople still get reelected by running on trivial stuff.
mandate language is indeed a result of the two party system but it is just so contrived.
|
On November 10 2012 03:03 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2012 02:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
House Reps retained their mandate to block new tax increases. Its high risk brinkmanship to assume that they'll risk political suicide without a compromise. Default law is that we go over the fiscal cliff and House Republicans get crucified by it. Republicans put themselves in this position in the debt ceiling fight last year. If House Republicans have a mandate to block new tax increases, they'd better be willing to accept the consequences. That, or pray their voters accept that "no new tax increases" is an eminently bipartisan offer and tax increases+spending decreases is creeping socialism. At this point, I'm pretty close to advocating for going over the cliff and ensuring a Democratic House in 2014. Permanently kills Republican obstructionism and guarantees two years of productivity.
The game is already changing. House Reps said they're willing to compromise and for revenue increases to occur. If Dems counter with a no compromise proposition then the responsibility will shift to them.
|
On November 10 2012 03:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The game is already changing. House Reps said they're willing to compromise and for revenue increases to occur. If Dems counter with a no compromise proposition then the responsibility will shift to them.
So much for that mandate. If they're bending two days after the election, I look forward to December.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
